Bombay High Court
Ritik @ Somesh Vilas Parate vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Divisional … on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5155
1 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 134 OF 2026
Ritik @ Somesh Vilas Parate, aged about 24
years, Occ. Labour, r/o Ladpura Nandgiri road,
Pachpaoli, Nagpur. Presently r/o Sarvaday
Chowk satighat road, Santaji School, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
District, Nagpur.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 3,
District Nagpur.
3. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station
Officer Police Station, Pachpaoli, District
Nagpur.
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri R.P. Durge, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms P.C. Bawankule, APP for the State.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE :27.03.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India questioning the legality and validity of the orders
dated 16.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Zone 3, district Nagpur and order dated 22.12.2025 passed
by respondent no.1 Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. The proceedings
under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short
hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1951’) were initiated against the
petitioner. Pursuant to the said proceedings show cause notice under
Section 59 came to be issued to the petitioner. Therefore, in response to
the said notice the petitioner appeared and made submission before the
Assistant Commissioner of Police. Accordingly, after considering the
report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police as well as material
placed before respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 has passed the
impugned order, which has been upheld by respondent no.1 in the
appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
action under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Act, 1951 was initiated against
him, however the entire order would depict that the same was passed
under Section 56 and not under Section 57 of the Act, 1951. The
3 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
considerations which are necessary to be considered under Section 57,
those consideration have not been considered while passing the
impugned order. The petitioner was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime
No.158/2019. Though the offence under Section 302 was also
registered against him, he was acquitted under Section 302 on
09.02.2024. Thereafter, he has committed two other offences. To
invoke provisions of Section 57 of the Act 1951, according to him, after
his conviction the offence which were registered against the petitioner
cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that Crime
No.754 of 2024 was registered in the individual capacity whereas
Crime No.124 of 2025 was registered under the provisions of NDPS
Act. So far as the crime registered under the NDPS Act is concerned
that crime cannot be considered as could be gathered from Section 57
of the Act, 1951 and therefore, he submits that absolutely, there is no
ground to extern the petitioner under Section 57 of the Act 1951.
Respondent no.2 has failed to subjectively satisfy himself that Crime
No.754 of 2024 which was registered after conviction of the petitioner,
is of an individual character and cannot be taken into consideration for
invoking Section 57 of the Act 1951. The petitioner further raised
another ground that while externing the petitioner from Nagpur
4 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
district, he was externed for two years and however, there are no
reasons in the entire order justifying externment of the petitioner for
maximum period.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak s/o
Laxman Dongre vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. (Criminal Appeal
No.139/2022) to submit that the order must record subjective
satisfaction about the necessity of passing of an order of externment for
the maximum period of two years which is based on material on
record. Therefore, impugned order is bad in law, and same deserves to
be quashed and set aside. Also, as respondent no. 1 Divisional
Commissioner has not considered any of the ground raised above,
therefore, even the said order of the Divisional Commissioner cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
6. On the other hand learned APP vehemently opposes the
petition by submitting that admittedly 7 offences are registered against
the petitioner. Three preventive actions under Section 110 were
initiated against the petitioner, however there is no change in the
behavior of the petitioner. In-camera statements of the witnesses were
recorded and enquiry under Section 59 was conducted, opportunity of
hearing has also been given to the petitioner and therefore, after
5 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
following all the mandatory procedure, the impugned orders came to
be passed. The subjective satisfaction of the authority could be
gathered from the entire order. The petitioner has committed 7 offences
which are serious in nature and in one of the crime the petitioner was
convicted and therefore, Section 57 was invoked. Respondent no.2 after
verifying the entire material objectively and after subjective satisfaction
has passed the order. He further submits that after conviction of the
petitioner under Section 307 of IPC, the petitioner has committed two
offences. So far as the Crime No.754/2024 is concerned, it was
registered on 17.09.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections
296, 115, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section
57 states that it is sufficient to extern the externee if he is convicted
and thereafter another offence similar to that for which a person was
convicted is committed. Further explanation appended to section 57
states that in case a person is convicted for an offence mentioned in
clause (a)(i), an offence falling under any of the chapters of the IPC is
an offence similar to that for what a person was convicted. There is
nothing else to be considered except the aforesaid and in detail
respondent no. 2 has scanned the entire material and passed the
impugned order. In the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 60
of the Act, 1951 again the Divisional Commissioner has re-appreciated
6 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
the entire material and thereafter confirmed the findings of respondent
no.2 and therefore, it is submitted that this Court may not go into the
concurrent findings of fact as there is no merit in the petition and the
same deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the rival submission and perused the
record. Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 reads as under :
“57. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences–
[(1)] If a person has been convicted —
(a) (i) of an offence under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the
Indian Penal Code ; or
(ii) of any offence under sections 65, 66A or 68 of the
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ; or
(iii) of an offence under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 or 9 of the
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,
1956; or
(iv) of an offence under section 135 of the Customs Act,
1962 ; or
(v) of an offence under section 4, or for accepting bet in
any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which
the public have or are permitted to have access, or in any
race course under clause (a) of section 12 or under section
12A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling
Act, 1887 ; or
…
(c) thrice or more of an offence under section 122 or 124 of
this Act, the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or the
Sub-Divisional, Magistrate empowered by the State
Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that
such person is likely again to engage himself in the
commission of an offence similar to that for which he was
convicted, may direct such person notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time
7 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odtbeing in force, to remove himself outside such area or areas
in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the local limits
of the jurisdiction of the officer or not and whether
contiguous or not), by such route, and within such time, as
the officer may specify and not to enter or return to the
area or areas so specified (hereinafter referred to as “the
specified area or areas”) from which he was directed to
remove himself.]
2….
Explanation.– For the purpose of this section “an offence
similar to that for which a person was convicted” shall
mean —
(i) in the case of a person convicted of an offence
mentioned in clause (a)(i) an offence falling under any of
the chapters of the Indian Penal Code, and
(ii) in the case of a person convicted of an offence
mentioned in clause (a) (excluding sub-clause (i) thereof),
(b) and (c), an offence falling under the provisions of the
Acts mentioned respectively in the said clauses.]”
8. Perusal of Section 57 would depict that this provision was
incorporated with an object to extern those persons who are already
convicted and thereafter also they commit further offence of similar
nature. Admittedly, the parameters laid down under Sections 56 and 57
are altogether different. The legislature had a specific intention for
incorporating Section 57 of the Act, 1951 and therefore, taking into
consideration the specific language used under Section 57 of the Act,
the present matter will have to be considered. So far as the facts of the
present case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was
convicted in Crime No.158 of 2019 for the offence punishable under
8 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
Section 307. It is an admitted position that thereafter the petitioner has
committed Crime No.754 of 2024 for the offence punishable under
Sections 296, 115, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS. Another crime came to be
registered under the provisions of NDPS Act i.e. Crime No.124/2025.
Considering this fact, under such contingency, the question is whether
respondent no.2 has rightly exercised his powers provided under
Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act or not. After perusal of the
impugned order it appears that respondent no. 2 has considered all the
offences which were registered against the petitioner. While considering
the offences, respondent no.2 has taken into consideration the impact
of those offences on the society. All these observations which finds
place in the impugned order can be a subject matter of an order passed
under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act and cannot be
considered when the order is passed under Section 57 of the Act, 1951.
After going through the entire impugned order I do not find that the
order was passed under Section 57 of the Act, 1951. As only on two
parameters the externing authority can record a finding if the order is
passed under Section 57 i.e. the externee has been convicted of any of
the offences enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) and
further satisfaction that it has reason to believe that the proposed
externee was likely to again engage himself in the commission of an
9 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
offence similar to that for which he was convicted. Though the
petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307
and at later point of time he has again committed other offences
however no finding to that effect is recorded in the impugned order.
Also whether those crimes were having any impact on the society or not
is also not considered by the respondent no.2.
9. This Court in Criminal Writ Petition (St.) No.18661 of 2023
(Mohammad Noor Hasan Abdul Gafar Shaikh @ Hasan Kanya vs. The
State of Maharashtra and anr.) dated 02.05.2024 particularly in
paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and has held as under :
“19. Was there any objective material to record such
satisfaction is the moot question? As noted above, the
historical fact of the Petitioner having been convicted for
the offences punishable under Chapter XVII of the Penal
Code in connection with the crimes registered during the
period 2005-08 could not have been legitimately taken into
account by the externing authority. If the said convictions
are eschewed from consideration, apart from the conviction
recorded in C.R.No.50 of 2015 which satisfies the element
of a condition precedent, two crimes registered against the
Petitioner appear to have been taken into consideration by
the Competent Authority.
20. I have perused the allegations in the FIR in
C.R.Nos.517 of 2022 and 13 of 2022 registered at Sewree
Police Station. In none of the crimes, the Petitioner has
been named as the suspect directly. C.R.No.13 of 2022 was
registered against unknown person. In C.R.No.517 of 2022,
8 named accused allegedly committed theft on a stranded
ship. Those persons allegedly stated that at the instance of
the applicant and another person Mobin Shaikh, they
attempted to commit theft on the said ship.
10 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
21. This being the nature of the accusation against the
Petitioner, it would be difficult to accede to the submission
on behalf of the Respondent that the Competent Authority
considered the objective material to record its subjective
satisfaction. Undoubtedly, the satisfaction to be arrived at
by the Competent Authority cannot be questioned on
merits. However, the existence and quality of the material
on which the satisfaction appears to have been arrived at is
required to be appreciated. ”
10. So far as the present impugned order is concerned, in the
entire order there is no subjective satisfaction in respect of the crime,
which was committed by the petitioner after his conviction. Respondent
no. 2 has considered all the crimes, which were registered against him,
which is not permissible under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police
Act. It is to be borne in mind that every provision is having its own
object. So far as Section 57 is concerned, it simply speaks about the
contingency when a person is convicted and thereafter he commits
another offence similar to that for which the person was convicted. It
presupposes that there should be a conviction and after conviction the
person committed an offence similar to the one, he was convicted, then
the provision under Section 57 can be invoked. Earlier offences before
the externing authorities before conviction is nothing but extraneous
considerations. Respondent no. 2 has failed to consider this difference
under Sections 56 and 57. The petitioner was convicted for Section 307
of the IPC and later he has committed another offence under Sections
11 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt296, 115, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS. Perusal of the FIR of the said
offence would demonstrates that first informant was the relative of the
petitioner and all the allegations were in an individual capacity, which
does not have an effect on the society at large. Even this fact has been
ignored by respondent no. 2 and under such circumstances it cannot be
said that respondent no. 2 has applied its mind. So also it appears from
the record that he has failed to subjectively satisfy on the objective
material placed before him. On the contrary, he has considered
parameters laid down under Section 56 of the Act, 1951 which is not
permissible. Therefore, very purpose of incorporating Section 57 would
be of no use.
11. Another important aspect is that the petitioner was
externed from Nagpur District for two years. Perusal of the impugned
order do not show any reason why the petitioner was externed for a
maximum period. It is mandatory on the part of the respondent
authorities that they should specify the reason so also subjective
satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for
the maximum period, which should be based on material on record.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak s/o
Laxman Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra and ors (surpa) in paragraph
13 has specifically held as under :
12 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
“13. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus:
58. Period of operation of orders under section 55. 56.
57 and 57A – A direction made under section 55 56 57
and 57A not to enter any particular area or such area
and any District or Districts, or any part thereof,
contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as the
case maybe, shall be for such period as may be specified
therein and shall in no case exceed a period of two years
from the date on which the person removes himself or is
removed from the area, District or Districts of part
aforesaid or from the specified area or areas as the case
may be”.
On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that
while passing an order under Section 56, the competent
authority must mention the area or District or Districts in
respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the
competent authority is required to specify the period for
which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum
period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an
application of mind on the part of the competent
authority is required for deciding the duration of the
restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of
objective assessment of the material on record, the
authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the
restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When
the competent authority passes an order for the
maximum permissible period of two years, the order of
externment must disclose an application of mind by the
competent authority and the order must record its
subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an
order of externment for the maximum period of two
years which is based on material on record. Careful
perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th
December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any
application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the
subjective satisfaction of the respondent no.2 on the
basis of material on record that the order of externment
should be for the maximum period of two years. If the
order of externment for the maximum permissible period
of two years is passed without recording subjective
satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the
order of externment to the maximum permissible period,
13 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on
the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”
Therefore, considering above observations of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, I find that respondent no. 2 has failed to record its
subjective satisfaction based on objective assessment of the material
and therefore, failed to apply its mind.
13. Further, even a perusal of the impugned order passed by
the Divisional Commissioner it appears that all the above grounds
which are raised have not been considered and therefore, respondent
no. 1 also failed to take into consideration all the aspects which were
observed by this Court as above. In this view of the matter, the
impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence the
following order :
(a) The petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned orders dated 22.12.2025 and 16.10.2025
passed by respondent no.1 and 2 respectively are hereby
quashed and set aside.
14. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made
absolute in the above terms.
(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.)
14 29.J.cri.wp.134.2026.odt
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/04/2026 10:39:35
